This movie felt like a teenage version of TREES LOUNGE, watching a guy make a series of decisions that seem small on their own, but they all add up to him becoming a loser.

The main character (played by Miles Teller) is like Ferris Bueller realized as a three dimensional human being. The movie follows him during the final months of high school during which his live-for-the-moment attitude is starting to catch up with him. He was the guy who was the life of the party in high school, but everybody's moving on and leaving him behind. We watch him fuck up two relationships with nice girls, his acedemic future, and even his retail job. He is an alcoholic, he's prettymuch drunk this entire movie. But although the movie is about an alcoholic, it isn't about alcoholism in the traditional sense. The movie is about choices, not addiction. I realize some alcoholics may find this offensive because they don't see alcoholism as a choice, but as a disease over which they are powerless. But I think there are different types of drunks.

My two favourite scenes in the movie both took place in the mens clothing store where Teller works. The first one is funny because his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend shows up to kick Teller's ass, but through his charm, the two end up becoming friends and the new boyfriend leaves with a newfound respect for Teller. The second was the exchange near the end between Teller and his boss, which was pretty sad.

I found this to be a very well written film, with exceptional thought put into all the characters, their motivations, and their relationships. The main relationship of the film is Teller and his rebound girlfriend, played by Shailene Woodley. Woodley is perfectly cast as this nice mousey doormat girl who has been overlooked by boys for all of highschool. She is willing to be treated kinda shitty so that she can have a boyfriend who is one of the cool kids. She even takes up drinking to impress him. And her relationship with her fuckup mum also shows that she needs to be needed and explains her attraction to these fuckup types.

There's a lot of other characters, too, and they all feel well fleshed out. It was nice to Kyle Chandler playing a gruff blue collar for a change since I think I only ever see him as these federal agent types. I also really liked how complex Teller's relationship was with his ex-girlfriend.

So, I think this is a very good movie. My experiences with teen movies hadn't been the best lately. I was really let down by THE WAY WAY BACK, and found THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER didn't completely work for me because it was handled like a "twist" movie. This is a good straightforward story with very good characterization that delivers a good realistic message.

i'm pretty sure this is the greatest movie ever made. you haven't lived until you've seen KISS vs. Robot KISS in a giant kung-fu battle on stage in front of thousands of screaming fans. i give this movie two (Gene Simmons-sized) tongues up.

two films have been made from stories from SK's Full Dark, No Stars, and i saw them both:

BIG DRIVER

this was probably my least favorite story from the book. i described it as I Spit On Your Grave Lite. how Lite? well, this was a Lifetime made-for-TV movie, so that should give you an idea. that said, this movie actually did a pretty good job of depicting the brutality of the rape and near-murder of the protagonist played by Maria Bello (Bello does a good job, but is a bit miscast; the character was supposed to be a mousy quiet writer, but Bello from the start seems like a chick you don't want to mess around with). the movie is decent; of all the stories in the book, this is one that actually has enough plot to be stretched out to movie length (in contrast, see A Good Marriage below). so even though it wasn't my favorite, it was probably the most easily adapted. and the movie is quite faithful to the book. of course, there are changes, and as usual the changes are not for the better. small as they are, they just don't make much sense, and smack of a screenwriter who feels like they need to change some things just so they can put their own "stamp" on it. the biggest change is that they remove entirely the "twist" (small twist that it is) from the book. or at least, halfway remove it. in the book, Big Driver is identified by Bello's character as her rapist after some cursory internet research and questioning of the barmaid where her car was dropped. in the book we find out that her rapist is actually his little brother, Little Driver, and she finds this out when she tracks down and shoots Big Driver only to find out that he's even way bigger than the guy who raped her. they even include the line that sets up this misidentification when the barmaid asks her about the guy who "helped" her, "is he big or is he really big?" in the film, Big Driver IS the rapist, but she still accidentally kills his brother, "Little Driver" first. other changes don't help either. a big part of the book and the film is her concern with making sure she doesn't get caught. as a mystery writer, she is constantly reminded that killers often overlook one small detail that gets them caught. so it makes no sense then, when she is stalking the guy who raped her, and then a cop comes up behind her and starts asking her what she's doing, and why she was walking around the truck the guy was driving while he was inside a store, and she gives some lame explanation about trying to find a spot to use her cell phone. the cop isn't buying it but drives off anyway. then, later that SAME NIGHT, she kills the guy driving the truck, and his brother, and his mom too. i suppose that cop isn't going to think of that suspicious chick who was hanging around the guy's truck the night he got shot in the head when his body is discovered? but later, when she's trying to think of anything she might have forgot that would get her caught, she goes back and finds some identifying article she left behind at the rape scene, but never even thinks of the cop. and then there's a conversation she has with the barmaid, which in the book takes place AFTER her revenge is completed, and the barmaid knows what she did and is explaining why she won't turn her in, because she was abused too. in the film, they move that convo up to the scene where they first meet, BEFORE her revenge, which means it kind of comes out of nowhere and doesn't mean nearly the same thing. and the only reason i can think of for them to do this is because in the last scene of the film, the writer gets a call from the barmaid saying something like "I know what you did. way to go, girl!" which also doesn't make sense because a) maybe she put together that the one guy raped her, instead of her boyfriend beating her up like she told her at first, but what about his mom and his brother? she doesn't know about their involvement, but is cheering her on for a triple murder anyway? and b) this scene was obviously meant to be a last-minute shocker, that she's been found out after all, but then it's totally undone by her saying "you go girl!" so there's no real threat to the writer after all.

A GOOD MARRIAGE

this was a better story, but a bit more difficult to adapt, since the vast majority of the story as written consists of the scene where the wife discovers her husband is a serial killer (not a spoiler, since this is revealed very early on) and the scene where he comes home and admits to being a killer and convinces her not to turn him in. after that it's all just a quick few pages of the wife deciding what to do about her new discovery, and the final resolution. so there was a lot to flesh out. SK himself wrote the screen play for this film, which isn't always a good thing. this one's ok. as you would expect, he is very faithful to his own story, while fleshing out the parts of the story that aren't as long in the book. there's plenty of pre-discovery set up and exposition to tell us everything we need to know about the wife and her husband and family, their daughter's upcoming wedding, their coin collecting hobby, the background on the serial killer, etc. basically stuff that is easy to plant in the written story but needs to be conveyed somehow to a film audience, and this is done a bit too conveniently over the course of an anniversary party or something, but it's done and over quickly. also, much more time is spent post-revelation as the wife deals with knowing what her husband is, her fears and her guilt. this part, unfortunately, is where the film lacks. joan allen plays the wife, and she's a good actress, but i don't think the film adequately portrays her struggle with the situation and what to do. instead of focusing on her guilt at hiding her husband's secret, and trying to decide what to do about it, it focuses more on her fear that she is in danger, nightmare sequences where she imagines him trying to kill her and then wakes up, and stuff like that. this also hurts the final act when the wife finally acts on her knowledge. it's not set up as well and seems almost random when it happens. in the book, it's much more telegraphed how she is going to handle things, but in the film, i think King was going more for a shock or surprise ending. it's a surprise alright (unless you read the story and you know it's coming) but not a very good one. anyway, the biggest change is the way they handle the detective character, who in the book doesn't show up until the very end. in the movie, he's there right from the beginning, but only lurking in the background, making him look suspicious. i'm not sure if he was being set up as a red herring (maybe HE's the real killer) or not but if so, it doesn't work too well when you learn without a doubt within the first half hour that the husband is the real killer. at one point, when the husband is away but before the wife learns about him being a killer, he comes and rings the doorbell (presumably to interview her about her husband) and she's frightened and doesn't answer the door, and he goes away. but then he never comes back, even during all the months after her discovery, until after she kills him. i guess his investigation of her husband as a potential serial killer wasn't so important that it couldn't wait a half dozen months or so.

"You only get one chance to make a first impression." The Unabomber said this once, and so did a lot of other people because it's a pretty common saying, not to mention an inarguable fact unless timetravel or amnesia come into play. I always put off seeing NIGHTBREED because it was one of those legendary cases of the studio drastically fucking with a filmmaker's vision. Over the years there have been constant rumours that the director's cut was going to surface, so I figured I'd wait and see this film for the first time as Clive Barker intended it to be seen. This cut is 20 minutes longer than what was originally released in 1990, and 40 minutes of this cut are said to be previously unseen. Barker introduces this cut on the bluray saying that the studio's main problem with the original cut was that the monsters were portrayed as sympathetic. Having only seen this new cut of the film, I would agree that changing that aspect of the movie would require almost half the movie to be changed.

Most people felt the theatrical cut was really messy and went all over the place with characters popping in and out and huge leaps of logic throughout. I wouldn't criticize the new cut for any of those things. The cut I saw definitely tells a story and I didn't really feel like much got lost in the frey.

For those of you who don't know, the film tells the story of a young Canadian man named Boone (played by Craig Sheffer) who is being framed for serial murder by his psychiatrist (played by David Cronenberg (!)). Boone's dreams guide him to a city beneath a cemetary where monsters live. He discovers that he, too, is a monster. Boone's psychiatrist wants to kill him to cover up his own serial killing and leads the police to the monster city for a massive siege.

The film does have its flaws, but they're the same things you expect after seeing other Clive Barker films and other horror movies in general. The actors aren't really the best, nor does Barker get terribly great work out of them. Craig Sheffer feels like a poor man's Stephen Dorf, and you don't even have to be a rich man to afford Stephen Dorf. As a director, Barker also isn't very good at giving any moment any more weight than any other moment, so the whole thing is a little flat considering the far-out subject matter. The main character discovers that he is a Moses type figure, prophesized to lead the monsters to the promised land. This development isn't adequately foreshadowed nor given the gravitas it ought to have.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie. I think it's pretty good because of its originality. It tells a cool story. The theme of people wanting to give themselves over to their monstrous side is a constant in Barker's work, but not one I find worn out and I feel he puts it to good use here. Barker's limits as a director and his cast's limits as actors hold the movie back from having the impact it could, but there's still a good movie in there. I'm going to read the novella upon which it is based to see if the story is better in novel form than on screen. It's been a long time since I saw BEETLEJUICE, but I remember that movie having many similiar elements but being much better because Tim Burton had a better hand at injecting humour and tension to keep things lively, and BEETLEJUICE had a much better cast.

I dug around on the internet and found that the fans who'd been waiting for this cut generally felt it was a big improvement in pacing, character, and consistency, just not the masterpiece they'd hoped the film would turn into.

Spandau Belly wrote:Craig Sheffer feels like a poor man's Stephen Dorf, and you don't even have to be a rich man to afford Stephen Dorf.

In all seriousness, though, I thought Sheffer was great in HELLRAISER: INFERNO.

I will watch this eventually, since NIGHTBREED carries some nostalgia for me having seen it at a young impressionable age and finding it weird as fuck. I have the old DVD and whatnot but I haven't watched it in a few years.

Perhaps the "Cabal Cut" is just what I need to restore my youth fluids.

continuing my string of films for which i've previously read the book, i recently watched Harry Potter and the Horny Horned Horns. since it was in limited release and not playing in my area, i ended up watching it on demand. i was a bit worried about this one, because the trailers and ads, and that one clip that kept showing on TV with him making the news reporters get in a fight with each other, seemed so tonally off compared to the book that it felt like they got this one wrong. luckily, though, that was not the case. for some inexplicable reason they seemed to try to sell this as a dark comedy, and that vaguely anchorman-ish news reporter fight was so over-the-top it stuck out like a sore thumb (having seen it a thousand times prior to the film probably didn't help either), but the rest of the film, while still having elements of black humor, was much more restrained, and while maybe not quite as dark as the book, still maintains a pretty bleak tonal consistency with the book. the funnier bits (pretty much universally involving someone divulging a secret about themselves or acting on some hidden desire) are sprinkled in here and there, but they could have gone a lot further if they had wanted to (we never do see the ultimate consequences of this town of people suddenly waking up afterwards having said and done all these shameful degenerate things to each other, which could be a comedy all by itself). instead they maintain the focus on Iggy and his quest to find his girlfriend's killer. and not all the revelations are played for laughs, some are downright painful (Ig's interactions with his own family and his GF's father in particular). the film stays very true to the book, besides the normal minor streamlining and omissions, the characters and the main events are unchanged. the ending does get rejiggered a bit, but doesn't change that much in essence, just gets a bit hollywood-ed up at the end (including some unfortunate CGI snakes). the ending is probably the weakest part of film (though arguably darker even than the book(at least there's no wedding in a treehouse in this version)), but doesn't detract from everything else that's good about the film.

I didn't wan't to post in the movie jornal thread at this early stage so I thought I should try here

DerLanghaarige wrote:

#0004 Loriots Ödipussi (VOD/1st viewing)

Loriot is not the guy who tells long stories, he tells damn hilarious anecdotes. So if you want your comedy movie to be story driven, stay away from this one. If you are okay with laughing like crazy about random but way too true observations of (German) narrow-mindedness and people having long conversations about nothing, all losely wrapped in a plot about a mama’s boy who falls in love, this one is for you.8,5/10

I keep confusing his two movies, is that the one with the carnival club meeting? That might be one of my favorite scenes ever. "You mean carnival despite women and environment?"

continuing my string of films for which i've previously read the book, i recently watched Harry Potter and the Horny Horned Horns. since it was in limited release and not playing in my area, i ended up watching it on demand. i was a bit worried about this one, because the trailers and ads, and that one clip that kept showing on TV with him making the news reporters get in a fight with each other, seemed so tonally off compared to the book that it felt like they got this one wrong. luckily, though, that was not the case. for some inexplicable reason they seemed to try to sell this as a dark comedy, and that vaguely anchorman-ish news reporter fight was so over-the-top it stuck out like a sore thumb (having seen it a thousand times prior to the film probably didn't help either), but the rest of the film, while still having elements of black humor, was much more restrained, and while maybe not quite as dark as the book, still maintains a pretty bleak tonal consistency with the book. the funnier bits (pretty much universally involving someone divulging a secret about themselves or acting on some hidden desire) are sprinkled in here and there, but they could have gone a lot further if they had wanted to (we never do see the ultimate consequences of this town of people suddenly waking up afterwards having said and done all these shameful degenerate things to each other, which could be a comedy all by itself). instead they maintain the focus on Iggy and his quest to find his girlfriend's killer. and not all the revelations are played for laughs, some are downright painful (Ig's interactions with his own family and his GF's father in particular). the film stays very true to the book, besides the normal minor streamlining and omissions, the characters and the main events are unchanged. the ending does get rejiggered a bit, but doesn't change that much in essence, just gets a bit hollywood-ed up at the end (including some unfortunate CGI snakes). the ending is probably the weakest part of film (though arguably darker even than the book(at least there's no wedding in a treehouse in this version)), but doesn't detract from everything else that's good about the film.

I bought this on Blu-Ray a while back and finally got around to watching it. I thought it deviated quite a bit from the book while basically maintaining the core shit of the story, changing some of the characters a bit, etc. But I enjoyed it and found it a faithful-enough adaptation. I was a bit miffed at first with the treatment of the protagonists brother in the film, but by the end I thought it worked.

The film is largely more of a murder mystery with the main character using his new-found devil powers to find his girlfriend's killer and also punish a few bad-doers, whereas in the book the identity of the killer is revealed pretty early on and the rest of the story is more of a character study and there was some stuff like what makes a man a devil and what makes him a man so basically what Disney's THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME with the song the guy sang and that central question "What makes a monster and what makes a man?' Quasimodo was a man, Frollo was a monster. Just so you know. FYI.

I liked some of the broader aspects more than Baxter did (e.g. the Anchorman fight scene) but didn't care too much for some of the small changes. A character uses a racial slur at one point that is rather antiquated and really unlikely to be used by anyone at this point in time in place of a much harsher word in the book. This change was jarring to me because, really, nobody is going to use the term "jigaboo" seriously ever, especially under the influence of devil horns that cause them to say the worst shit possible. They could have shortened it to "jig" which is both meaner and funnier.

So overall, I enjoyed it. Daniel Radcliffe was really good I thought. The part that made me cry in the book also made me cry here and pretty much because of Mr. Potter, so good acting there. His narration seemed like an afterthought, though, and really unnecessary.

The book is better, of course, and should be read, so you should do that. Although the film had an exploding head which I wasn't expecting, followed by the best reaction to an exploding head I've ever seen in a film. So good job there, guys.

The wife and I watched Andy Sidaris's SAVAGE BEACH, featuring henchman favorite Al Leong. He probably has more dialogue in this film than all of his other films combined. This and the scene where former Playmate Hope Marie Carlton has a surprisingly good tearful acting moment with a fake Japanese man made up to look old but just looks like a mummy upgraded the film to an instant classic.

so sorry wrote:I watched Black Hawk Down last night for the first time in many years. Kinda wild to realize how many of those dudes that I didn't really know shit about before have pretty good careers now.

Jaimie Lannister, Obi Wan Kenobi, The Hulk, two heroin junkies from Trainspotting, Phil from Modern Family, two dudes from a soap opera I used to watch, and pre-fat Tom Sizemore. Quite a cast.

excellent movie, and the reason it doesn't get the recognition it deserves is because it depicts a horrific defeat of US forces, albeit on a small scale, and that is extremely difficult for the American psyche to handle. this was not a movie about a killer wrestling with having to be away from his family to do his killing, in a "win" for the US, that the American psyche eats up with a spoon. and unlike The Alamo there was no later victory to celebrate, we folded up operations and left. "Blackhawk Down" doesn't get nearly the recognition it deserves, imho. I think what is most important in and about the movie is the resilience and bravery of those men who died and the ones did make it out alive, it was a victory on that individual scale that transcends to be a victory of the metaphysical human spirit that everyone can share in a small way, "what one man can do another man can do". now I may be bias as I confess to be a sucker for movies that tap into the ideal of "we all meet our end at some point, it is how we face that end that is important", which is why I dig a good viking movie as well

Finally got around to watching LIFE OF CRIME, based on Elmore Leonard's The Switch and a sorta-prequel to JACKIE BROWN/Rum Punch. It's no JACKIE BROWN, but captures the Elmore Leonard feel really well with good performances from Jennifer Aniston and John Hawkes, and a very laid-back turtlenecked Mos Def/Yasiin Bey. I was compelled to purchase The Switch from Amazon since I haven't read it yet. I'm curious to see how well they adapted this business.

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Finally got around to watching LIFE OF CRIME, based on Elmore Leonard's The Switch and a sorta-prequel to JACKIE BROWN/Rum Punch. It's no JACKIE BROWN, but captures the Elmore Leonard feel really well with good performances from Jennifer Aniston and John Hawkes, and a very laid-back turtlenecked Mos Def/Yasiin Bey. I was compelled to purchase The Switch from Amazon since I haven't read it yet. I'm curious to see how well they adapted this business.

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Finally got around to watching LIFE OF CRIME, based on Elmore Leonard's The Switch and a sorta-prequel to JACKIE BROWN/Rum Punch. It's no JACKIE BROWN, but captures the Elmore Leonard feel really well with good performances from Jennifer Aniston and John Hawkes, and a very laid-back turtlenecked Mos Def/Yasiin Bey. I was compelled to purchase The Switch from Amazon since I haven't read it yet. I'm curious to see how well they adapted this business.

Ended up watching R.I.P.D. with my wife and a couple of our friends. I would describe it as MEN IN BLACK meets GHOST meets TRUE GRIT meets a steep decline in quality.

Having said that, I did not find the film offensively bad. It's not exactly what I'd call good either, but definitely worth a watch for Rooster Cogburn alone. Ryan Reynolds does fine in the Dalton role, doing his usual smartass thing and also being sad about dying and leaving his hot wife behind. Kevin Bacon makes a surprise appearance as Dalton's shitbag partner. I kinda thought he was above this kind of movie for some reason. Or maybe I just haven't seen Kevin Bacon rendered in CGI since HOLLOW MAN. Also I guess he fought ghosts or something in that STIR OF ECHOES movie, so I suppose it's in his pedigree.

Overall I enjoyed the movie, dumb as it is. But harmless dumb.

Also, Mary-Louweeds Parker looks incredible for a seventy year old woman.

Yeah, it's okay in a "Not bad to watch once"-way, but I doubt that its reputation will grow a lot over the next few decades. (And yes, Mary-Louise Parker in those boots is for R.I.P.D. what Amy Adams in those pants was for NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2.)

Just rewatched A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET PART 2 FREDDY'S REVENGE for a second time after many years. I absolutely loved it. In fact, I think it's a better film than the original NIGHTMARE. Better acting, awesome special effects (Freddy tearing out of the kid's torso was amazing) and the lady protagonist is extremely cute in a young Meryl Streep way.

The pool party scene is completely absurd, but it's worth it for the Do-Gooder scene and Freddy's "Help yourself, fucker!" and really is it any more ridiculous than the HOME ALONE ending in the first film?

I'm not sure how anyone could call the Dumbledore stuff "subtext" since it's so blatantly in your face. The kid is caught red-handed cleaning his room in about the gayest way possible. He has a Probe board game in his closet for Christ's sake!

I see this film essentially as "slaying the Dumbledore away." Jesse/Freddy only kills males throughout the entire film, until the obligatory shock ending. When Jesse tries to make it with Meryl he grows a long monster tongue and immediately runs to his handsome shirtless friend and asks to stay the night.

Plus, you know, he goes to that Dumbledore S&M club.

The whole third act is all about Meryl curing Jesse of the Dumbledore. Not the most enlightened or progressive kind of attitude, but it makes for good interesting horror.

I'm glad this film exists. I'm glad it's seriously-scary pre-trickster Freddy, who I feel is much scarier this time around than in the first film (pool party Freddy aside). This is a legitimately great (GREAT) sequel and film in general.

I'm not sure how the exploding parrot fits into all of this, but I love Clu Gulager's reaction to it which is basically to berate his son for no reason.

Now, I'm back in a country that doesn't have such ambiguity but a verging on fascistic obsession with IP I can now watch more of these without their guts ripped out. The questionably distributed versions in China are often devoid of extras and generally compressed to awfully studly pixels the size of super not HD, so to say I'm excited is an understatement.

The last DVD I saw was Big Hero 6. Which I couldn't help but find extremely disturbing. My analysis is focused mainly as insight into psyche as much as any collective (un)conscious influences drawn from for the movie. As a film within a film there is the story of a cutting edge technological company making a film about cutting edge technology and the military industrial complex. It's so dark. From the perspective of national consciousness the most famous pop cultural brothers of Eurasian descent, of which one dies and the other continues in revenge after being protected by his friends for a while, are unlikely role models associated with a world famous technology scholastic establishment (MIT).

Is it an attempt to draw something positive from how young great minds who could have applied themselves when they find themselves in morally ambiguous technological frontiers? Tragic people like Aaron Swartz who failed to become and capitalise on their successes like the Zuckerbergs of the world. Just folks without the money for legal support to help them navigate or write their own laws. As a movie about superheroes, I guess justice here finds a way, something rarely found without piles and piles of the green in the right hands enabling real cases to actually be built, not even going to touch corruption here, don't need to.

Hiro manages to juggle and maintain his ethics (with the help of Baymax) when the evil force is found to be a man broken by personal tragedy brought about by the greed, pressures and irresponsibility in the high technology sector. A personal tragedy not too dissimilar from his own. Which leads to Baymax - the core of the movie, an embodiment of caring and compassion who just wants to heal and it's really no surprise that he proves so popular in a movie drenched in such amazingly bleak depression.

Ultimately, the film reminded me somewhat of Silent Running, where essentially benign technology itself is the remaining passive force looking after and caring for ecological and organic life, there is definitely something about Huey and Duey (amongst other more famous star wars droids) unselfish actions that really hits you in the feels. It could be put forward that they are portrayed as saviour figures, and whilst I don't personally buy that, they are fascinating automata for us to project upon.

I recently watched TANGERINE on Netflix and it's probably the best thing I've seen all year. The first thing everyone seems to jump to is that the film was shot entirely with three iPhone 5seses. You could say that it's a gimmick or at least a selling point for people who take an interest in that shit, but the important thing is that it looks great. I'm sure this thing got a lot of love and attention in the post-production phase. The end result is quite good. It's just a really nice film to look at with a lot of vibrant colors.

The other major thing people gotta bring up is that the central characters are transgendered prostitutes played by amateur transgendered actresses and that's unusual for the movies and also they give great performances. Actually, there is a lot of good acting happening here and a lot of real folks from the actual neighborhood this was shot in to provide flavor. I only recognized three people from other stuff. James Ransone who plays probably the most pathetic pimp ever. Old ass character actor Clu Gulager has a small but memorable and funny role. And Ana Foxx who I recognize from various adult, uh, entertainments.

The film takes place over one afternoon and night and is one of those day-in-the-life type character pieces I dig. The plot is pretty minimal so the narrative is much more situation-based as you watch these various people interact. Also, it's set on Christmas Eve so I'll be able to slot it in with my future holiday viewing like DIE HARD and EYES WIDE SHUT.

What I love about the film is that it's really fucking funny. The characters are across the board pathetic, loud, trifling folks who will get into street fights together in one scene and then bond over a crackpipe in the next. Just about every character seems like they wandered out of a side mission in Grand Theft Auto. These are obnoxious and petty people leading pretty sad lives, so there is a lot of pathos mixed in with the humor. It never feels like we're looking down on them, but rather taking part in their shenanigans. We're laughing at them, but we're laughing with them too.

The film ends on a rather sweet note that frankly gave me warm fucking feelings inside. At the end of it all this is a story of friendship. Even if these friends end up letting each other down and fucking each other over again and again, they'll still stick by one another. Because at the end of the day they only have each other, for better or worse.

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Just rewatched A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET PART 2 FREDDY'S REVENGE for a second time after many years. I absolutely loved it. In fact, I think it's a better film than the original NIGHTMARE. Better acting, awesome special effects (Freddy tearing out of the kid's torso was amazing) and the lady protagonist is extremely cute in a young Meryl Streep way.

The pool party scene is completely absurd, but it's worth it for the Do-Gooder scene and Freddy's "Help yourself, fucker!" and really is it any more ridiculous than the HOME ALONE ending in the first film?

I'm not sure how anyone could call the Dumbledore stuff "subtext" since it's so blatantly in your face. The kid is caught red-handed cleaning his room in about the gayest way possible. He has a Probe board game in his closet for Christ's sake!

I see this film essentially as "slaying the Dumbledore away." Jesse/Freddy only kills males throughout the entire film, until the obligatory shock ending. When Jesse tries to make it with Meryl he grows a long monster tongue and immediately runs to his handsome shirtless friend and asks to stay the night.

Plus, you know, he goes to that Dumbledore S&M club.

The whole third act is all about Meryl curing Jesse of the Dumbledore. Not the most enlightened or progressive kind of attitude, but it makes for good interesting horror.

I'm glad this film exists. I'm glad it's seriously-scary pre-trickster Freddy, who I feel is much scarier this time around than in the first film (pool party Freddy aside). This is a legitimately great (GREAT) sequel and film in general.

I'm not sure how the exploding parrot fits into all of this, but I love Clu Gulager's reaction to it which is basically to berate his son for no reason.

I watched this too this year for my Halloween viewing, alongside Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Your review is ridiculously on point! I was amazed as the subtext unfurled before mine eyes, all I can think is that there was a seriously pissed off writer somewhere who's Dumbledore opus was wrecked in the filming!

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Just rewatched A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET PART 2 FREDDY'S REVENGE for a second time after many years. I absolutely loved it. In fact, I think it's a better film than the original NIGHTMARE. Better acting, awesome special effects (Freddy tearing out of the kid's torso was amazing) and the lady protagonist is extremely cute in a young Meryl Streep way.

The pool party scene is completely absurd, but it's worth it for the Do-Gooder scene and Freddy's "Help yourself, fucker!" and really is it any more ridiculous than the HOME ALONE ending in the first film?

I'm not sure how anyone could call the Dumbledore stuff "subtext" since it's so blatantly in your face. The kid is caught red-handed cleaning his room in about the gayest way possible. He has a Probe board game in his closet for Christ's sake!

I see this film essentially as "slaying the Dumbledore away." Jesse/Freddy only kills males throughout the entire film, until the obligatory shock ending. When Jesse tries to make it with Meryl he grows a long monster tongue and immediately runs to his handsome shirtless friend and asks to stay the night.

Plus, you know, he goes to that Dumbledore S&M club.

The whole third act is all about Meryl curing Jesse of the Dumbledore. Not the most enlightened or progressive kind of attitude, but it makes for good interesting horror.

I'm glad this film exists. I'm glad it's seriously-scary pre-trickster Freddy, who I feel is much scarier this time around than in the first film (pool party Freddy aside). This is a legitimately great (GREAT) sequel and film in general.

I'm not sure how the exploding parrot fits into all of this, but I love Clu Gulager's reaction to it which is basically to berate his son for no reason.

I watched this too this year for my Halloween viewing, alongside Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Your review is ridiculously on point! I was amazed as the subtext unfurled before mine eyes, all I can think is that there was a seriously pissed off writer somewhere who's Dumbledore opus was wrecked in the filming!

Actually, it was almost the exact opposite. The writer actually intended the Dumbledore subtext to just be subtext, but through the power of the '80s absolute cluelessness (really is there an unintentionally-gayer decade for film than the 1980s?) the filmmakers pushed the subtext to the forefront where it became just TEXT.

I recommend NEVER SLEEP AGAIN, a lengthy documentary on the entire series. The section about PART 2 is funny as hell.

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Just rewatched A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET PART 2 FREDDY'S REVENGE for a second time after many years. I absolutely loved it. In fact, I think it's a better film than the original NIGHTMARE. Better acting, awesome special effects (Freddy tearing out of the kid's torso was amazing) and the lady protagonist is extremely cute in a young Meryl Streep way.

The pool party scene is completely absurd, but it's worth it for the Do-Gooder scene and Freddy's "Help yourself, fucker!" and really is it any more ridiculous than the HOME ALONE ending in the first film?

I'm not sure how anyone could call the Dumbledore stuff "subtext" since it's so blatantly in your face. The kid is caught red-handed cleaning his room in about the gayest way possible. He has a Probe board game in his closet for Christ's sake!

I see this film essentially as "slaying the Dumbledore away." Jesse/Freddy only kills males throughout the entire film, until the obligatory shock ending. When Jesse tries to make it with Meryl he grows a long monster tongue and immediately runs to his handsome shirtless friend and asks to stay the night.

Plus, you know, he goes to that Dumbledore S&M club.

The whole third act is all about Meryl curing Jesse of the Dumbledore. Not the most enlightened or progressive kind of attitude, but it makes for good interesting horror.

I'm glad this film exists. I'm glad it's seriously-scary pre-trickster Freddy, who I feel is much scarier this time around than in the first film (pool party Freddy aside). This is a legitimately great (GREAT) sequel and film in general.

I'm not sure how the exploding parrot fits into all of this, but I love Clu Gulager's reaction to it which is basically to berate his son for no reason.

I watched this too this year for my Halloween viewing, alongside Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Your review is ridiculously on point! I was amazed as the subtext unfurled before mine eyes, all I can think is that there was a seriously pissed off writer somewhere who's Dumbledore opus was wrecked in the filming!

Actually, it was almost the exact opposite. The writer actually intended the Dumbledore subtext to just be subtext, but through the power of the '80s absolute cluelessness (really is there an unintentionally-gayer decade for film than the 1980s?) the filmmakers pushed the subtext to the forefront where it became just TEXT.

I recommend NEVER SLEEP AGAIN, a lengthy documentary on the entire series. The section about PART 2 is funny as hell.

Cheers! I'd heard about the doc before, but never really had a reason to seek it out until now. So you are saying it would have been an amusing subtext? But they then really decided to focus more on the whole "buddy buddy"* angle of it?! LOLZORS.

caruso_stalker217 wrote:I recently watched TANGERINE on Netflix and it's probably the best thing I've seen all year. The first thing everyone seems to jump to is that the film was shot entirely with three iPhone 5seses. You could say that it's a gimmick or at least a selling point for people who take an interest in that shit, but the important thing is that it looks great. I'm sure this thing got a lot of love and attention in the post-production phase. The end result is quite good. It's just a really nice film to look at with a lot of vibrant colors.

The other major thing people gotta bring up is that the central characters are transgendered prostitutes played by amateur transgendered actresses and that's unusual for the movies and also they give great performances. Actually, there is a lot of good acting happening here and a lot of real folks from the actual neighborhood this was shot in to provide flavor. I only recognized three people from other stuff. James Ransone who plays probably the most pathetic pimp ever. Old ass character actor Clu Gulager has a small but memorable and funny role. And Ana Foxx who I recognize from various adult, uh, entertainments.

The film takes place over one afternoon and night and is one of those day-in-the-life type character pieces I dig. The plot is pretty minimal so the narrative is much more situation-based as you watch these various people interact. Also, it's set on Christmas Eve so I'll be able to slot it in with my future holiday viewing like DIE HARD and EYES WIDE SHUT.

What I love about the film is that it's really fucking funny. The characters are across the board pathetic, loud, trifling folks who will get into street fights together in one scene and then bond over a crackpipe in the next. Just about every character seems like they wandered out of a side mission in Grand Theft Auto. These are obnoxious and petty people leading pretty sad lives, so there is a lot of pathos mixed in with the humor. It never feels like we're looking down on them, but rather taking part in their shenanigans. We're laughing at them, but we're laughing with them too.

The film ends on a rather sweet note that frankly gave me warm fucking feelings inside. At the end of it all this is a story of friendship. Even if these friends end up letting each other down and fucking each other over again and again, they'll still stick by one another. Because at the end of the day they only have each other, for better or worse.

Five This-Movie-Is-Good Stars

I like this review because I picture you cradling your baby while watching a movie about transgendered prostitutes

caruso_stalker217 wrote:I recently watched TANGERINE on Netflix and it's probably the best thing I've seen all year. The first thing everyone seems to jump to is that the film was shot entirely with three iPhone 5seses. You could say that it's a gimmick or at least a selling point for people who take an interest in that shit, but the important thing is that it looks great. I'm sure this thing got a lot of love and attention in the post-production phase. The end result is quite good. It's just a really nice film to look at with a lot of vibrant colors.

The other major thing people gotta bring up is that the central characters are transgendered prostitutes played by amateur transgendered actresses and that's unusual for the movies and also they give great performances. Actually, there is a lot of good acting happening here and a lot of real folks from the actual neighborhood this was shot in to provide flavor. I only recognized three people from other stuff. James Ransone who plays probably the most pathetic pimp ever. Old ass character actor Clu Gulager has a small but memorable and funny role. And Ana Foxx who I recognize from various adult, uh, entertainments.

The film takes place over one afternoon and night and is one of those day-in-the-life type character pieces I dig. The plot is pretty minimal so the narrative is much more situation-based as you watch these various people interact. Also, it's set on Christmas Eve so I'll be able to slot it in with my future holiday viewing like DIE HARD and EYES WIDE SHUT.

What I love about the film is that it's really fucking funny. The characters are across the board pathetic, loud, trifling folks who will get into street fights together in one scene and then bond over a crackpipe in the next. Just about every character seems like they wandered out of a side mission in Grand Theft Auto. These are obnoxious and petty people leading pretty sad lives, so there is a lot of pathos mixed in with the humor. It never feels like we're looking down on them, but rather taking part in their shenanigans. We're laughing at them, but we're laughing with them too.

The film ends on a rather sweet note that frankly gave me warm fucking feelings inside. At the end of it all this is a story of friendship. Even if these friends end up letting each other down and fucking each other over again and again, they'll still stick by one another. Because at the end of the day they only have each other, for better or worse.

Five This-Movie-Is-Good Stars

I like this review because I picture you cradling your baby while watching a movie about transgendered prostitutes

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Just rewatched A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET PART 2 FREDDY'S REVENGE for a second time after many years. I absolutely loved it. In fact, I think it's a better film than the original NIGHTMARE. Better acting, awesome special effects (Freddy tearing out of the kid's torso was amazing) and the lady protagonist is extremely cute in a young Meryl Streep way.

The pool party scene is completely absurd, but it's worth it for the Do-Gooder scene and Freddy's "Help yourself, fucker!" and really is it any more ridiculous than the HOME ALONE ending in the first film?

I'm not sure how anyone could call the Dumbledore stuff "subtext" since it's so blatantly in your face. The kid is caught red-handed cleaning his room in about the gayest way possible. He has a Probe board game in his closet for Christ's sake!

I see this film essentially as "slaying the Dumbledore away." Jesse/Freddy only kills males throughout the entire film, until the obligatory shock ending. When Jesse tries to make it with Meryl he grows a long monster tongue and immediately runs to his handsome shirtless friend and asks to stay the night.

Plus, you know, he goes to that Dumbledore S&M club.

The whole third act is all about Meryl curing Jesse of the Dumbledore. Not the most enlightened or progressive kind of attitude, but it makes for good interesting horror.

I'm glad this film exists. I'm glad it's seriously-scary pre-trickster Freddy, who I feel is much scarier this time around than in the first film (pool party Freddy aside). This is a legitimately great (GREAT) sequel and film in general.

I'm not sure how the exploding parrot fits into all of this, but I love Clu Gulager's reaction to it which is basically to berate his son for no reason.

I watched this too this year for my Halloween viewing, alongside Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Your review is ridiculously on point! I was amazed as the subtext unfurled before mine eyes, all I can think is that there was a seriously pissed off writer somewhere who's Dumbledore opus was wrecked in the filming!

Actually, it was almost the exact opposite. The writer actually intended the Dumbledore subtext to just be subtext, but through the power of the '80s absolute cluelessness (really is there an unintentionally-gayer decade for film than the 1980s?) the filmmakers pushed the subtext to the forefront where it became just TEXT.

I recommend NEVER SLEEP AGAIN, a lengthy documentary on the entire series. The section about PART 2 is funny as hell.

caruso_stalker217 wrote:I recently watched TANGERINE on Netflix and it's probably the best thing I've seen all year.

I had heard of this film, but mostly dismissed it as a shock-value gimmicky movie. Based on Caruso's recommendation I chose to see this film when I noticed it playing at a cinema nearby. I am very glad I did. This movie has a lot of heart and authenticity.

It's done with an aggressive style of cinematography with bright high-contrast colours and it always seems like the cameraman is sprinting and zooming to catch up with his subject, like the cinematography in a lot of Danny Boyle's stuff. That aggressive style combined with the flamboyant nature of the characters was a bit intense at first, but I got into it and by the time this thing rolled into its third act, I was totally engaged.

Like Caruso said, this film is really funny but commits to immersing you in these characters' lives and getting intimate with them, so it never feels like it's mocking them from a safe distance. The whole thing isn't supposed to be some big Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN lifechanging journey for these characters, they all seem relatively aware on some level that the events seen in this film are just a bunch of shit that they'll forget about tomorrow when they roll out of a dumpster to do it all again.

It's a really nice slice o' life flick, with good Christmas holiday movie sensibilities. I second Caruso's recommendation.

caruso_stalker217 wrote:I recently watched TANGERINE on Netflix and it's probably the best thing I've seen all year.

I had heard of this film, but mostly dismissed it as a shock-value gimmicky movie. Based on Caruso's recommendation I chose to see this film when I noticed it playing at a cinema nearby. I am very glad I did. This movie has a lot of heart and authenticity.

It's done with an aggressive style of cinematography with bright high-contrast colours and it always seems like the cameraman is sprinting and zooming to catch up with his subject, like the cinematography in a lot of Danny Boyle's stuff. That aggressive style combined with the flamboyant nature of the characters was a bit intense at first, but I got into it and by the time this thing rolled into its third act, I was totally engaged.

Like Caruso said, this film is really funny but commits to immersing you in these characters' lives and getting intimate with them, so it never feels like it's mocking them from a safe distance. The whole thing isn't supposed to be some big Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN lifechanging journey for these characters, they all seem relatively aware on some level that the events seen in this film are just a bunch of shit that they'll forget about tomorrow when they roll out of a dumpster to do it all again.

It's a really nice slice o' life flick, with good Christmas holiday movie sensibilities. I second Caruso's recommendation.

Good to see you guys liked this. It only has a 2 star rating on Netflix so I wasn't especially keen on watching it. I'll make a point to check this one out.

i've been wanting to see this film since i saw the trailer, primarily because it's about me (or a very close approximation of a version of me, that is to say, a kid in the 80s growing up in the Delmarva area and regularly vacationing in Ocean City MD). except, i never played Ping Pong. but i did wear parachute pants and try to breakdance, though thankfully i never actually tried to use hip-hop slang as a kid in casual conversation.

so, if i had one word to describe this film, i would say it is aggressively nostalgic. if i had more words to describe this film, i'd elaborate by pointing out that this film has a tendency to stick in random lingering shots of places and things that a kid growing up in the 80s in this area would immediately recognize and remember. "oh hey, he's wearing a super dooper looper shirt." "hey, it's gold coast mall!" "that guy's wearing a Hammerjacks t-shirt!" "i remember that game, the one where you press the buttons and it makes the rings float up in the water and you try to get them on the pegs!" on the one hand, a lot of the pleasure in watching this film is picking out all the references. on the other hand, if you didn't grow up in this area in the 80s, most of that stuff is going to be completely unknown to you and fly over your head. so it's kinda like watching a feature-length version of someone's vacation home movies. if you grew up in the 80s, you might recognize a little less than half the references. if you aren't from the area and missed the 80s, you're out of luck.

this movie has a very odd tone. it's kind of like a parody of an 80s film (think karate kid), except i'm not sure if it knows it's a parody. it's not an obvious, joke-filled parody. more like a slightly strange skewed low-key parody where things just seem a little off in amusing but offbeat ways. it's really hard to describe. the "villains" are ridiculous, but more ridiculous in a pathetic way than in a jokey will ferrell way. the "hero" and "best friend" and "trophy girl" are all cliches, but with little quirks that keep you off-balance. i'd almost say it's a bit napoleon dynamite-like in tone, except if you dialed down the obnoxiousness and in-your-face oddness of that character by about 90%. maybe another way of describing it, is like if aliens came to earth and observed a kid's summer beach vacation, and then tried to make a movie about it, and got pretty close, but don't quite get it right. if you know what i mean.

i enjoyed it. but, i have a feeling this film has a VERY specific target audience that i just happened to fall in the middle of.

this is one of those films that can be summed up entirely by simply reciting the high concept description that was probably used as the pitch for the movie: Groundhog Day meets American Pie meets every single rom-com ever made that centers around a guy who pines for the hottest girl in school while completely ignoring the hot chick he's been best friends with since they were 5. based on that description, you will literally know every single scene and plot development in this film from beginning to end.

despite being completely unoriginal and derivative, it is a pretty funny movie. as long as you can overlook the complete lack of surprises and just enjoy the jokes and performances, it is pretty enjoyable on that level. the lead actor does a good job of going from michael cera-like cluelessness and awkardness at the beginning to an almost ferris bueller-like insouciance to becoming fairly sympathetic by the end. i didn't have high hopes at the beginning, but he carried off the transitions well, though never coming quite close to the brilliance of bill murray; but then again, other than bill murray, who does? the other teen performances are inconsistent but for the most part pretty good, including the male best friend and the cute (soon-to-be-more-than-a) best friend. the school hottie is pretty cliche'd though, and probably the biggest weakness of the film is in believing the main character to be so clueless as to want to be with her rather than the cuter AND cooler girl you know he's gonna end up with. the second they are on screen together, it is so obvious what's coming that it just ends up frustrating that the filmmakers are going to make you wait and pretend to wonder if they actually hook up by the end.

the second biggest weakness is the lack of boobs. there are 3, to be exact, they all show up within the first couple minutes of the movie, and i'm pretty sure at least one of them was fake.

i guess you'd call this a "found footage" movie, but not really. the whole movie* takes place on a computer screen. basically, this movie is like looking over your teenage daughter's shoulder for an hour and a half while she skypes, chats, facebooks, youtubes, googles, snapchats, instagrams, and other stuff that internet-savvy kids do these days. because everyone has a webcam, you can see the people she's talking to (and the girl herself), but only on the computer screen. this is a good movie for people who like foreign films, because they are already used to reading the whole film. even though a good portion of the movie takes place on skype (hence, dialogue) there are lots of side conversations in chat boxes, facebook comments, youtube video comments, and articles on the 'net to read. and some are printed really small, i had to rewind or pause on my 50" tv a few times so i could actually read an important piece of text that was printed really small on the screen. so bring your reading glasses. i don't think this movie was made for anyone old enough to need reading glasses though. it probably appeals more to kids who actually spend time on the computer this way, though i have no way of knowing if kids these days actually do spend time on the computer this way. if the lead girl in this film is any example, they must all be bionically connected to their laptops because the speed with which she flies around from one site, app, and window to another, typing, googling, etc at lightspeed, is kind of mind-boggling.

anyway, other than the computer gimmick the film is nothing special. oh yeah, i guess i should describe the premise: a year ago, some girl at these kids' school committed suicide due to a humiliating video posted on youtube, and on the anniversary these kids are chatting on the computer when an unknown person hacks in and starts fucking with them. you can piece together where it goes from there, none of the twists or reveals are particularly clever or surprising, a few tense moments here and there but ultimately the computer screen gimmick makes it all feel a bit silly.

i watched this after i came home from seeing The VVitch. it seemed like a suitable double feature. this may sound like damning with faint praise, and if so, that's totally how it's intended. but this is the best M Night Shyamalan film in over a decade. it's definitely not Sixth Sense or Unbreakable good, but it's not Lady in the Water or the Happening bad either. maybe in the same general area as Signs or the Village, both flawed films that i mostly enjoyed. the found footage conceit is unnecessary, and as usual adds that undercurrent of "why are they still filming this" to certain scenes. as the ending of the film makes clear, it's not exactly "found footage". the female kid in the film is making a documentary, so there is editing and even some music added, and the video quality is better. but it's all first-person stuff filmed by these two kids, so it still stretches credibility in some scenes.the kids are ok. the little boy is kind of annoying, especially when he's rapping (yes he's a white kid who wants to be a rapper). the twist (because this is a shyamalan film so OF COURSE there's a twist) is something i should have seen coming, but i didn't, mainly because i was expecting something a lot crazier than what it actually turned out to be. which is a good thing, because the actual twist is much more plausible and works better than the crazy ones i was expecting.overall it was entertaining, and as someone who generally hates most movies with kids in them, the fact that i was able to tolerate these, even the rapping little boy, probably says something good about this movie. probably the first m night film in ages that i could actually recommend as worth watching.

DEATH BED: THE BED THAT EATS

it's about a transdimensional bed that's possessed by a demon or something. this is one of those precious little jewels of a film that sounds absolutely ridiculous but takes itself completely seriously, thus making it even more ridiculous. it's the kind of film that if it were made today, would be totally tongue-in-cheek and constantly winking at the audience. but because it was made in the 70s, and the filmmaker actually tried to make it serious and even a bit artsy, it is far more entertaining and bizarre and funny for it. everything from the way the bed "eats" (by apparently swallowing people up into its sheets, which then plunges them into some interdimensional vat of urine-like liquid that dissovles them) to the seemingly nonsensical voiceovers by some other character who's trapped in a painting and forced to watch the bed as it dines, is the purest kind of camp. the "logic" and backstory of the plot is too wacky to describe. this is not a film to watch alone. it's a film to get drunk and watch with a bunch of people while laughing and making fun of it. i don't think i'll ever watch this film again, but the one time was an experience to behold.

TheBaxter wrote:it's the kind of film that if it were made today, would be totally tongue-in-cheek and constantly winking at the audience. but because it was made in the 70s, and the filmmaker actually tried to make it serious and even a bit artsy, it is far more entertaining and bizarre and funny for it. the bed "eats"... by apparently swallowing people up into its sheets, which then plunges them into some interdimensional vat of urine-like liquid that dissovles them

Sounds a little bit like Under the Skin! Although that one is definitely not a "get drunk and watch with friends" movie.

TheBaxter wrote:The VVisitthe twist (because this is a shyamalan film so OF COURSE there's a twist) is something i should have seen coming, but i didn't, mainly because i was expecting something a lot crazier than what it actually turned out to be. which is a good thing, because the actual twist is much more plausible and works better than the crazy ones i was expecting.

So I'll never see this film, guaranteed, but I'm interested in knowing what the twist was, so....Spill it spoiler boy!

TheBaxter wrote:The VVisitthe twist (because this is a shyamalan film so OF COURSE there's a twist) is something i should have seen coming, but i didn't, mainly because i was expecting something a lot crazier than what it actually turned out to be. which is a good thing, because the actual twist is much more plausible and works better than the crazy ones i was expecting.

So I'll never see this film, guaranteed, but I'm interested in knowing what the twist was, so....Spill it spoiler boy!

the twist is the "grandparents" aren't really their grandparents, but are two crazy people who lived at an asylum the real grandparents worked at, killed them and posed as them when they found the kids were coming. which isn't too implausible because the kids had never met the grandparents before (because they were estranged from their mom) and because the mom just ships them off to them on the train instead of taking them there personally (ok that bits a bit of a stretch... also the idea that these two crazy people escaped from the asylum and there wasn't some massive manhunt underway to find them)

also, i forgot, my favorite part of the film is when the little boy gets a pie in the face.... except it's not a pie.... it's the old man's dirty diaper

So does this mean you're looking forward to the supposed-hot-mess Tarzan movie coming out this summer? Because it can't be that bad, right?

I am SO looking forward to it. it looks like it was inspired by the books, instead of early Hollywood movies. anyone who has read the books knows they have a great pulpy quality to them. books like "Tarzan and the Leopard Men", or "Tarzan and the City of Gold", stuff like that. the trailers look as if they are trying to capture something of that sensibility and I am all in

To celebrate my 30th birthday today I watched Frank Miller's Will Eisner's THE SPIRIT. I will be watching this on each of the 29 remaining days of April as well, for no better reason other than because I can.

I just watched this and quite liked it. Well written and thought out. They handled current technology and ubiquitous cell phones quite well, and had very few "why didn't she just do this?" moments. I would've had more scenes from the main characters POV, where all the sounds were gone, but it was still a good movie overall

I also just watched: Oculus (finally) and loved it.The Babadook (didn't like it)Devil (M. Nkght wrote and produced it. I always love movies set in Philadelphia)The Hallow (Irish hollow - liked it)From the Dark (Irish vampires - quite good)

this movie is based on a book by gillian flynn, the writer of gone girl, that i read last year. i loved gone girl, but this book sucked. as for the movie, other than the complete and total miscasting of the lead role (charlize theron isn't the first name that comes to mind when i think of 4'11 dumpy redheads), the film is otherwise very faithful to the book. which is to say, it sucks too. and for the same reasons. the main failure of the book is due to the ridiculously convenient coincidences that the plot depends upon. both the flashback story and the modern-day story each hinge on a coincidence that is way too far-fetched to buy into. i could probably have accepted the coincidence in the flashback if that was the only one, at least it would have been a novel approach to the film's central mystery. but combined with the modern-day twist deus ex machina-type ending, it's just too much disbelief for me to suspend. i was kinda hoping the film would somehow make those coincidences feel less ludicrous, either by changing them or at least presenting them in a more believable way, but if anything the film actually makes them feel more laughably incredible. so ultimately, the film managed to both make the bad parts of the book worse, and undercut the best part of the book (the central character) through idiotically ill-conceived casting. theron is a good actress, but she can't sell this part. they don't even try to ugly her up a la Monster, they just put her in a baseball cap, which means she looks like a supermodel in a baseball cap throughout the film instead of the desperate, down-on-her-luck sad-sack sorry character of the book. her star power probably had a lot to do with getting this film made (i'm not sure but i think this film went into production before gone girl became such a big hit, so it probably needed a bit of help) but she shoulda just taken the exec producer credit, or maybe a small cameo role. she coulda even played the mother in the flashbacks, which still would've been a bit miscast but not nearly as bad as the lead, but instead it comes off as a vanity project at the expense of the film. i guess at least it's a good thing that it was a sucky book and an even suckier film that would've still sucked even with a properly cast lead actress, so it's not like they fucked up an actual good film or anything. thank zod for small favors.